Common Council

Kingston Common Council Needs a Clear Legislative Process

by

By Rebecca Martin

One of the ongoing problems for the Kingston Common Council is pretty basic: there isn’t a clear, shared understanding of how legislation actually moves through the system.

Some of it is in the Council Rules. Some of it is in the City Charter. Some of it is just “how it’s always been done.” And the result is the same—council members, staff, and the public end up debating the substance of an issue without any real attention to the process shaping it.

That shows up recently in moments like the tree ordinance or the commuter rail memorializing resolution introduced through the executive branch. Whatever you think of either proposal, they both point to the same underlying problem: ideas are being introduced without a clear, consistent path for turning them into legislation that the public can actually follow, evaluate, and act on.

Without clear procedure—which the Council President is supposed to oversee—the council is left reacting in real time, without the information or structure it needs to properly evaluate, amend, or move forward what’s in front of it.

At a minimum, any request for legislative change—whether it comes from the executive branch, council members, or the public—should include supporting materials such as draft language, examples, or comparable legislation. Without that, the council must construct language from scratch, often under time pressure and without a shared reference point.

When this process is repeated across multiple issues and proposals, the workload grows substantially. Council members are expected to research complex topics, draft legislation, solicit public input, and make informed decisions, all while serving in positions that are intended to be part-time and provide relatively modest compensation. Providing supporting materials from the outset helps create a more efficient and effective legislative process while making better use of everyone’s limited time and resources.

The Council President should also be responsible for determining whether something is sufficiently developed to move into committee. If there isn’t enough structure to work from, it isn’t ready for formal legislative consideration.

Once something reaches committee, there should be a designated council sponsor who carries it through the process. That sponsor works with staff, the public, and the original proponents to refine it into workable legislation.

That process takes time—and it should. It requires a council that is actually working from a strategic understanding of its priorities, not just reacting to whatever shows up on the agenda. That can’t happen through emails, informal conversations, or backchannel discussions. And it can’t be something that happens entirely before the public ever sees it.

There has to be a real public process—structured, transparent, and consistent from start to finish. That is what gives legitimacy to the outcome, even for people who disagree with it.

Right now, that structure doesn’t exist in any consistent way that we can see. And without it, the council defaults into a reactive posture—responding to whatever gets dropped in front of it instead of shaping policy deliberately.

If the council is going to do this work well, it also needs the capacity to do it. That means independent legal and clerical support on the legislative side—not solely reliance on executive-controlled staffing. The Corporation Counsel serves at the pleasure of the mayor. Even with good faith efforts, there is no structural guarantee of equal support to the legislative branch. In practice, that can influence which ideas move forward, how quickly they move, and what shape they are in by the time they reach the full council.

This is exactly the kind of work the Council President should be leading: organizing a clear mapping of how legislation actually moves through the system and getting the council aligned around a shared understanding of that process. If that role isn’t doing that work, then the question has to be asked—what is the point of having a Council President at all? The position doesn’t vote, so it shouldn’t function as an unchecked gatekeeper over process without meaningful accountability or transparency.

But if the Council President is not willing to lead that effort collaboratively, the council should not need to wait for permission. It already has the authority to assign one of its own members to take it on—map the process, identify the gaps, and begin closing them so that future work and rule changes are grounded in something coherent.

Fixing this isn’t glamorous work. But it’s the work that determines whether city government actually functions—or just remains status quo. KingstonCitizens.org appreciates and supports the Kingston Common Council to have the clarity and tools it needs to legislate effectively.

GUEST POST Sleepless in Kingston: What I Learned about Train Horns and the Search for Quiet Zones

by

By Dan Nelson

My partner and I moved back to the East coast in spring 2023 after 35 and 25 years, respectively, living in Oakland, California. We managed to find a rental in Kingston (not easy!), which fortunately turned out to be a loft, so it had built-in studio space. Otherwise we would have been looking for studios in a market where they’re more expensive than the Bay Area (!). Our neighborhood in Oakland was mostly quiet at night, but some nights and early mornings featured muscle cars peeling out, fireworks (almost nightly in the 2-3 months leading up to July 4th), public fights, crazy people yelling on the sidewalk, etc. We were no strangers to sleep disturbance, but we had no idea about the freight trains of Kingston.

For about a year in 2024-25 we were looking for a house to buy. After looking at fifty-ish houses in person, being outbid on two, withdrawing a bid on one money pit, and unsuccessfully asking for a small contingency on the fourth house, the fifth house we bid on became ours. We knew it was one block from a rail crossing, but we had heard only one train pass during a brief daytime visit to the house, and were ready to end the search. We moved into the house, about 450 ft. from the Flatbush Ave. rail crossing, in February. 

As is probably obvious to anyone living here, there are many trains at all hours of the day and night. Kingston seems to be the only town or city of any size between Albany and New York City through which freight trains pass, all of which are operated by CSX. There are six rail crossings in Kingston proper, all in a one-mile stretch through our most densely-populated neighborhood. Publicly available info showed that there are 20 to 30 trains passing through Kingston in any given 24-hour period.

In March, after looking into what the law dictated about train signals, the first person I messaged about train noise was Suzanne Cahill, the Planning Director for the City of Kingston: “Despite only being required to sound one short and one longer horn (of undefined lengths) at each crossing, the trains routinely sound many blasts of an average of four seconds each, before during and after crossings. These blasts are of the same length and frequency at 4 AM as they are at 4 PM, in other words, regardless of the amount of vehicle and pedestrian traffic. The vibrations—a result of poorly maintained tracks, some say—shake our entire house, rattling mirrors and furniture and waking us up a few times per night…..”

Peter Criswell, a former co-worker of mine who had since become an Ulster County representative, directed me to Bob Dennison, the Alderman for Ward 6 on the City of Kingston Common Council. In response to the first of several emails I would send, Bob (CC-ing Mayor Steve Noble and Kingston Common Council President Andrea Shaut) included a link to the Ulster County Quiet Zone Study (2024). I had already stumbled upon a study from 2006. He summarized the City’s take on it: 

“The cost of establishing a Quiet Zone in the City is significant and beyond the resources of the City at this time. 

“As you know, sounding the train horn is required when a train crosses a public street. There are four city streets crossing the tracks at grade close to your house which is part of the problem. 

“I know the Mayor is in conversation about the trains moving through the city with CSX but they are regulated by the Federal Government and mostly outside of our control. I suggest you contact our federal representatives for more information. 

“I understand and share your frustration. I hope the study is useful.”

A friend of a friend, who lives in Midtown near the Foxhall and Ten Broeck crossings and who was losing as much sleep as we were, had also been in contact with the City, and his take was that they were not prepared to do anything. Though it at first felt like the City was brushing us off, my impression now is that they are concerned and had already done a lot to look into possible solutions, including applying for a federal grant to establish a quiet zone.

Having read the 2006 study and noting that the busiest and most accident-prone crossings were Foxhall and Flatbush, my takeaway was that, in the 45-year period covered by the report, there were about 15 incidents involving vehicles or pedestrians being struck by trains, resulting in 4 fatalities and a number of injuries. It also appears that many, if not all, of these incidents occurred before the installation of the enhanced crossing protections that exist today, including the flashing crossing gates that were added roughly a decade ago (if anyone can confirm this, I would appreciate it). I asked myself and the City: 

  • What specific safety risks are the train horns intended to address, and are there alternative safety measures that could provide comparable protection while reducing noise impacts on nearby residents? 
  • How has the anticipated safety benefit of the horns been evaluated against the potential impacts on the thousands of residents who may be affected by nighttime noise throughout the year? 
  • What evidence exists regarding the frequency and likelihood of incidents that train horns are intended to prevent, and how was that weighed against the public health and quality-of-life impacts of routine horn use? 
  • How does the decision-making process balance the goal of preventing rare but serious incidents with the ongoing impacts that noise may have on residents, particularly during overnight hours? 

I still wanted to know what the City was prepared to do to address this chronic problem. I’d been in touch with Natalie Lincoln at Congressman Pat Ryan’s office and, while I was encouraged that they were looking into the matter, the conversation seemed to be going in circles. 

One thing that stood out was that neither the City nor Peter Criswell had mentioned the $1M grant secured by Senators Schumer and Gillibrand for the Safe & Accessible Flatbush & Foxhall Project. Even though a huge benefit to establishing a quiet zone was to eliminate train honking, the stated goal of it was to replace safety measures like horns with other safety measures in the form of physical markings and barriers to keep people and cars from wandering onto the tracks. I naturally wondered whether elements of a future quiet zone were already being contemplated as part of that work. At a minimum, there seemed to be potential overlap between the two efforts. If the City is already investing in crossing safety improvements, it seems reasonable to ask whether those improvements could also advance the long-term goal of reducing or eliminating routine train horn noise through a quiet zone designation. 

Natalie, who was extremely helpful and responsive, shared a substantial amount of information from the FRA (Federal Railway Administration), which I tried navigating. But by that point, I felt as though I was being bounced between different levels of government. The City had directed me to my federal representatives, and the FRA materials seemed to show that the necessary steps would ultimately need to be initiated and carried out at the local level. It started to feel a bit like a classic “Ask your mother” / “Ask your father” situation!

Natalie also explained that Kingston would likely be less competitive for the next round of Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program funding than larger communities such as Port Jervis. That made me wonder what steps the City could take on its own, or in partnership with state and federal agencies, rather than waiting for a future grant opportunity that may or may not materialize. 

Bob Dennison burst my bubble: 

“The Safe and Accessible Flatbush Foxhall Project does not include work necessary to establish a quiet zone. It’s primarily a pedestrian safety improvement project. It will include improvements to rail crossing but not to the extent necessary to make a quiet zone. 

“The biggest hurdle to a quiet zone is cost. In my experience the railroad will not participate in the cost of establishing a quiet zone. The list of requirements the FRA sent you is intimidating and it is typically their expectation that the local government will do the work and bear the cost necessary to establish the zone. 

“Some of the requirements, like closing low volume crossings, can be done by local government. Other improvements like new gates and fencing the railroad right of way are expensive and need cooperation of the railroad. 

“Of course the Railroad’s preference is to grade separate the crossings which is very costly and very difficult to implement, requiring  Right of Way acquisition and years to accomplish. As well as significant impact to the surrounding area. [“Grade separation” means to put passenger and freight traffic on different levels using overpasses and underpasses.]

“I suggest you reach out to the NYSDOT Rail Safety Unit in Albany. The Director is Ray Hessinger. I know this sounds like another hand off, but I understand your concern and think you will find them helpful.”

The list of infrastructure needed to establish a quiet zone didn’t seem particularly long: flashing gates, center lane delineators, safety markings, signage, and fencing. Hadn’t the City already implemented the flashing gates sometime between the 2006 and 2024 safety studies? If so, couldn’t this grant help fund some of the remaining items? It sounded like fencing around some of the crossings would be a significant expense, but the report focused that need mainly in the area around Broadway, where high school students cut across the tracks–a daytime activity, right?

At the end of the day, maybe the simplest, cheapest and easiest solution would be for trains to just not blow the horn more than they needed to. 

Meanwhile, Natalie assured me that the City was assiduously pursuing grant opportunities on more than one front:

Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program. The last round was in 2024 in the Biden Administration. We are waiting on the next round to be announced. It may be a combo FY25-FY26 Grant which combines two funding years into one application. 

Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program: This program provides funding for highway-rail or pathway-rail grade crossing improvement projects that focus on improving the safety and mobility of people and goods. Same timeline as the CRISI Program, keeping an eye on the latest found round. You can read about the funding we helped secure for Port Jervis through this program below.

“It is a little bit of a chicken/egg issue, but I know the safety concerns on Flatbush/Foxhall are being taken very seriously by the city. 

“I think the Ulster County Transportation Council might be a good place to direct some of these questions. You can read their old study on Kingston Quiet Zones from 2006 which might provide some helpful background too.“  

I filled Natalie in on what I’d learned from the City and she said:  “I think Bob is right, the hardest part is the cooperation of the railroad [CSX]. They really throw a wrench in the gears….”

At this point it was clear that there was not very much in the way of persuasion or cajoling that could be done. It all seemed to boil down to the willingness – and the funding – to implement the specific physical improvements required for a quiet zone,  all without any participation from CSX. 

Which brings us to the May 8th Town of Ulster council meeting, where not only did some citizens complain about the train noise, but Councilman Mike Schatzel did as well. Schatzel, who lives approximately 1,000 feet from the tracks and/or a crossing, spoke about the issue from his own experience. (Again, we live half that distance from a crossing.) The meeting was covered by the Daily Freeman, which reported that Schatzel: 

…acknowledged that reports of homeless people being near the tracks could be related to the change in horn use.

“There is no consistency on how the horns are blown,” he said. “Sometimes it’s one or two (short horns), sometimes they don’t let off on it until they get to Staples, maybe even farther. … There’s one particular guy that (on) Sunday night he just likes to lay on it from (Neighborhood Road) to Dunkin’ Donuts in Kingston [about 2 miles – DN]. He just won’t let up.”

Some residents said the issue is “extremely disruptive.”

“We have noticed a significant and concerning increase in train traffic along with unusually loud noise levels,” wrote residents Simone Garzella and Robert Canfield.

“Some trains in particular have been extremely disruptive at all hours of the day and night,” they wrote. “We are routinely being woken up between midnight and 5 a.m. During the day, it often feels as though we are living inside a train station.”

The piece quoted Town of Ulster Supervisor James Quigley, who had said CSX has been told of the complaints but received only standard responses.

“As a government, we jokingly call trying to deal with the railroads as trying to talk to God,” he said. “They don’t talk back. When I sent the email the other day to the representative that I usually communicate with at CSX, his short reply was ‘Thank you, but we comply with all federal railway administration requirements.’”

Quigley said a study previously undertaken by Kingston to determine whether rail crossings, including some in the town of Ulster, should be updated to allow train conductors to limit the number of times a horn is needed.

“Those intersections would require major engineering improvements,” he said. “If you were to go on to Grant Avenue, which is a four-lane crossing of the CSX tracks with a median, a grass median, and curbing in the middle, a quiet zone would produce gates that absolutely prevent any vehicle from entering onto the crossing, which gives the CSX railroad the right to change the horn patterns.”

Schatzel’s observation that there was a lot of inconsistency in horn use, and at times some particularly aggressive-sounding train horns, resonated with us. I think of it in the context of car drivers: the difference between a brief tap of the horn to signal that the light has changed and laying on the horn for five seconds is significant. A long horn blast communicates urgency, anger or danger. When you are on the receiving end of that sound, note your physiological response. Now imagine that same response occurring while you are asleep. How does the body react on a subconscious level?

The CSX Media Relations Director Austin Staton was at the meeting. The article noted his claim that the federal regulations give guidelines “…with specific guidance on timing and volume….” He’s correct that horn volume is specific: between 96 and 110 dB. The “timing” specifies a certain distance, confusingly not a linear distance but a time to destination: 15 to 20 seconds before the train’s lead car reaches the crossing. But in the “two long, one short and one long blast” at each crossing, the regulations don’t specify the duration of the blasts.

In CSX’s view, one or both of these things would need to happen to change their behavior: enhanced safety infrastructure such as gates and medians, and concrete information about when and how long CSX engineers are sounding their horns. In fact, after a couple of exhausting months dealing with this issue, I was ready to give up and accept what many people had said: “You’ll get used to it.” Until, that is, Staton said,

 “If you can’t give me specific locations and times I can’t speculate on this,” he said. “We understand the frustration of the community but…if you want me to give an answer, I need specific locations and timing.”

Well I’m a musician, and I’ve made recordings. My first idea to see – and raise – Staton’s bluff was to put a microphone outside our window and connect it to a laptop with a program that is sound-activated and could record horn frequency, duration, and decibels. What I ended up doing was pointing a Zoom recorder toward the crossing and recording about ten nights in a row between 8 PM and 8 AM, as well as several 24-hour periods, capturing train signals. The times, frequency, and durations can now be noted in a spreadsheet. 

Next will be to set up a decibel meter next to the crossing, one that can connect to an app and be sound activated, ideally also noting the time. Walking to work in the Rondout a few days a week, on different routes that take me past two to three crossings, I’m only sometimes able to catch a decibel reading. The last one was 109.5, just 0.5 dB below the maximum – and equivalent to, for example, a hair brushing against skin.

Note that, as is clearly stated on the websites of companies like Union Pacific and BNSF, railroads appear to be uniformly and strongly opposed to quiet zones, which they claim is for safety reasons.

I emailed Councilman Schatzel about my efforts on May 13th, expecting a swift response and imagining that we might be clinking beer steins in solidarity before long, but three weeks later and still no reply. 

I’d copied Natlie (from Congressman Pat Ryan’s office) who responded that the Railroad Crossing Elimination (RCE) and Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) programs had released their FY25-26 Notices of Funding Opportunity (NoFOs!). In other words, grants were now open for applications. I passed this along to Bob Dennison, who forwarded it to Ruth Ann Devitt-Frank, Director of Grants Management for Kingston, and John M. Schultheis, P.E., City Engineer. 

What they had to say was disappointing. After pinning my hopes on what seemed like the only viable tool available to encourage CSX to change its behavior—federal funding to help Kingston meet federal safety requirements —Ruth Ann said that the project cost of the quiet zone project would fall way below the amount of the grant, and so would not be eligible: 

“The Crossing Elimination program requires a minimum total project cost of $1 million. City Engineer John Schultheis estimated that closing Gage and Ten Broeck and constructing embankments to create Quiet Zones would be about $20,000 – we could also include new signage, but would not be near the minimum. John’s recommendation is that we instead consider adding the project to the city budget to be handled by city staff. We’ll request consideration for the 2027 budget and continue to look for other funding sources.

“John has also done some exploration about the 4-quadrant gates solution and concluded it isn’t desirable as there’s a high upfront cost with ongoing annual maintenance. The City would be responsible for covering that cost estimated to be $15,000 a year. His recommendation is that the City look at installation of non-traversable medians instead of gates.  

“We could apply for these measures under the CRISI program instead of the Crossing Elimination Program. However, a benefit cost analysis (BCA) is required as part of the CRISI application; the City doesn’t currently have the staff capacity to take on development of a BCA. We’re also not convinced the outcome of a BCA would be competitive enough to win an award.

“All that said, we do hear and share your frustration.”

So a quiet zone would cost the City too much, but not enough to qualify for a grant.

John clarified:

“…Closing Gage and Ten Broeck alone will not allow the city to request establishment of a quiet zone.  Additional work would be needed at 4 other crossing locations. Those may or may not be solved by the non-traversable medians, closure, or other means.  Further, one of the crossing locations is a private road in the cemetery and is not under city control.  More study is needed to determine whether a quiet zone is possible and if so the best path.”

At that point, I was left confused—weren’t there already four-quadrant gates at all six crossings? And it began to sound like the goalposts were moving, with medians and other measures being framed as either sufficient or insufficient depending on the location. 

On May 18th, my email to Ray Hessinger at the NYSDOT got a response from his colleague Brian Galvin, an Intermodal Transportation Specialist. Brian requested more information, which I immediately provided. As of June 1st, I hadn’t heard back. 

One question I have not yet raised directly is whether a noise ordinance could apply here. Cities can regulate noise from music, car horns, lawn equipment and power tools, so why not trains? Looking closely at Kingston’s noise ordinance suggests it applies to private entities, which would likely exclude CSX or be preempted by federal law. 

Natalie, in response to Ruth Ann and John’s messages, said, 

“It seems the City has done its due diligence to look into the programs, sadly it is a complicated set of programs and they are extremely competitive. I work with the City’s grants team often and they are experts!

“I just attended a briefing  by the FRA with other Congressional staff on both programs and they shared that the FY2023-2024 application round received  374 applications totaling $10,278,893,840.16 in requests  but they only had $2,478,391,050.00 in funding available. I am flagging this for my colleague to see if we can identify future opportunities to help Kingston study the quiet zone.”

Or the City could just tell CSX to divert the tracks around Kingston? Couldn’t they? It’s not clear how Kingston is benefitting at all from its “relationship” with CSX.

 

 

Take action: 

  1. If you’d like to join our growing group to discuss this issue and identify solutions, please contact Dan Nelson at thedannelson [at] proton.me. 
  2. Attend KingstonCitizens.org’s upcoming webinar on rail safety on Wednesday, June 17 at 6:00pm with Jess Conard of Rail Watch.

 

DEC Finalizes SEQRA Rulemaking to Implement Environmental Justice Siting Law

by

By Rebecca Martin

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has finalized long-awaited updates to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) regulations to implement the Environmental Justice Siting Law. The agency adopted the final regulations on April 24, just ahead of the April 30, 2026 deadline (and posted on May 13). The regulations are scheduled to take effect on June 12.

These changes come at the same time Governor Hochul is proposing sweeping amendments to SEQRA through the state budget process, an expedited legislative mechanism that allows major policy changes to be enacted with limited public hearings and compressed review, reducing transparency and public scrutiny. In my view, using the budget process in this way goes beyond tilting the scales and concentrates too much power in a process not designed for this level of substantive policy change. It is more than a thumb on the scale—the governor is effectively sitting on it.

What SEQRA Is and Why It Matters

SEQRA is New York’s environmental review law. Since becoming effective in 1976, it has helped protect communities, public health, water, infrastructure, and natural resources by requiring government agencies to evaluate the potential impacts of major development projects before approvals are granted.

SEQRA is unique to New York State, and not every state has an equivalent environmental review process. It is one of the state’s primary tools for identifying environmental and community impacts, including traffic, air and water quality, noise, infrastructure strain, and cumulative effects. It also requires agencies and applicants to consider mitigation measures to avoid or reduce significant impacts before projects move forward.

This distinction becomes clear when looking at cases outside New York. During our fight against Niagara Bottling over a decade ago, after a five-month effort that helped push the company out of our area, KingstonCitizens.org followed their proposal to Bloomfield, Connecticut, where the community was at a significant disadvantage compared to New York communities. In Connecticut, the local water system was controlled at the state level, and there was no comparable environmental review framework like SEQRA to require the same level of public process and impact analysis.

As a result, despite local opposition, the small community ultimately lost its fight against a 432,000-square-foot Niagara Bottling facility that had originally been proposed for Ulster County. Experiences like this illustrate how important SEQRA is in New York—it is a safeguard that should be valued and improved through careful, transparent change, not dismantled or treated as an obstacle.

What the Environmental Justice Siting Law Requires

The Environmental Justice Siting Law requires decision-makers to consider whether proposed projects could have disproportionate impacts on disadvantaged communities. Until now, there has not been clear guidance explaining exactly how local governments were supposed to make those determinations during environmental review.

The updated regulations will revise the Environmental Assessment Form used during SEQRA review and add questions designed to better identify potential impacts on disadvantaged communities. DEC is also expected to update its SEQRA Handbook and related guidance so municipalities and applicants can apply the new requirements more consistently across the state.

Small Housing Projects and SEQRA Exemptions

The final regulations also expand certain SEQRA categories known as “Type II actions” for small multifamily housing projects. Type II actions are categories of development that are excluded from SEQRA environmental review because they are considered unlikely to result in significant adverse environmental impacts.

Under the DEC’s final rule, some multifamily projects with four or more housing units may qualify for this exemption if they are under 10,000 square feet, located on an approved lot, connected to existing public water and sewer service, allowed under local zoning either as-of-right or by special permit, and still subject to local site plan review.

These conditions limit the exemption to relatively small projects that DEC considers to have already been sufficiently evaluated through past environmental review experience, making additional SEQRA review unnecessary.

The Governor’s Proposal

At the same time, Governor Hochul has proposed separate changes to SEQRA through the state budget that would go significantly further than DEC’s rulemaking. Her proposal would exempt housing developments of up to 300 units in cities and 100 units outside cities from environmental review entirely, meaning it would allow much larger housing projects to bypass review than those covered under current DEC rules.  If enacted, those changes could override portions of DEC’s newly finalized framework, including its Type II exemption for small multifamily housing, meaning that although DEC’s rules may take effect on June 12, parts of them could later be superseded by broader exemptions adopted through the budget process.

Unlike DEC’s rulemaking, which was grounded in prior environmental review experience with smaller developments and included a public rulemaking process, the Governor’s proposal has not been accompanied by any publicly explained analysis or supporting data for the chosen unit thresholds, including review of past environmental review outcomes, Environmental Notice Bulletin filings, community input, or environmental justice impacts. The proposal has instead been advanced through the state budget process, where policy changes are negotiated and enacted as part of executive-led budget negotiations rather than through separate, standalone legislative hearings.

In a recent social media post defending her changes, Governor Hochul stated: “For too long, NIMBY culture has blocked the housing New Yorkers need. Not anymore.”  Her statement is a broad dismissal of her constituents, framing opposition as the problem rather than part of the democratic process.  This reflects a familiar political dynamic in which crises are used as justification to advance sweeping changes that would otherwise face greater scrutiny, including the rollback of environmental review protections.

What Happens Next

The difference between DEC’s rulemaking and the Governor’s proposal is substantial. DEC’s exemption applies only to relatively small projects and still operates within a broader environmental justice review framework. The Governor’s proposal, by contrast, would exempt far larger developments from SEQRA review entirely, including environmental justice considerations.

For now, DEC’s rulemaking is complete and the new regulations are scheduled to take effect on June 12. The focus will shift to how municipalities apply the updated requirements in practice and whether the Governor’s broader SEQRA proposal is ultimately adopted through the state budget process.

To help municipalities come up to speed once the budget process concludes,  local leadership should consider training for its boards, councils, trustees and committees who are most likely to serve as lead agencies for projects in their communities.

Communities in NYS without a zoning code may also want to prioritize adopting a comprehensive plan and zoning regulations. Doing so can provide clearer long-term direction for development decisions and help ensure that growth occurs in a way that reflects community priorities rather than leaving those decisions entirely to individual project proposals.

 

ADDITIONAL READING

70+ Local Leaders Rally Against Gov. Hochul’s Changes to NY’s Environmental Review Law (5/1/26)
Read the City of Kingston Planning Board’s letter (4/20/26)
Read the City of Kingston Common Council’s letter (3/27/26)
Read the City of Kingston Mayor’s letter (3/16/26)
Read the Kingston Conservation Advisory Council letter (3/5/26)

TAKE THE POLL: Do you believe City staff time should be allocated to organizing statewide lobby days initiated by the Mayor?

by

Most residents don’t see what happens behind the scenes when City Hall turns its attention to state-level politics. But lately, there’s been a noticeable pattern: repeated “lobby days” in Albany organized by our mayor and involving City staff—not just attending, but organizing them from the ground up.

That raises a basic oversight question: when does routine intergovernmental coordination become a structured lobbying operation funded by City staff time?

Cities do advocate in Albany. But what is less clear here is the scale and structure of the effort. When staff are involved not just in supporting a mayoral trip, but in planning, coordinating, and executing multiple statewide advocacy days within a short period, it stops looking like occasional intergovernmental work and starts looking like an organized program.

And that leads directly to a budget question that has not yet been answered publicly: what specific authority or budget line supports this use of staff time?

TAKE THE POLL (Now Closed):  “Do you believe City staff time should be allocated to organizing statewide lobbying days in Albany initiated by the Mayor without a clearly defined budget line or formal Council approval?”

City staff are funded to run municipal operations—everything from permitting and infrastructure to public services and administration. When significant staff capacity is redirected toward repeated statewide lobbying trips, the public is entitled to ask how much staff time is being used?  What work is not being done locally while this is happening? And who approved this as a priority?

There is also a transparency question for the Common Council. If this is now part of the Mayor’s operating approach, was the Council formally informed that City personnel would be engaged in recurring Albany lobbying efforts at this level?

The Kingston City Charter gives the Council oversight authority over City departments and employees, including access to records and the ability to examine official conduct and use of public resources.  That authority exists for moments like this—when the line between normal intergovernmental coordination and sustained advocacy operations becomes blurred.

None of this is about whether Kingston should advocate in Albany. It should.  The question is whether this is still “advocacy as part of government,” or whether it has become something closer to a standing lobbying function carried out using City staff time—with limited visibility into cost, scope, or authorization.

At minimum, it deserves a clear public accounting: who is doing the work, and what it is replacing? Because once public staff time becomes part of a recurring political program, it is no longer just a policy choice—it is a budget and oversight issue.

When publicly funded staff time is used for sustained, high-visibility statewide advocacy, it raises a fair question: is this about advancing Kingston’s priorities, or advancing a political profile? That distinction matters—and it requires transparency.

TAKE THE POLL (Now Closed)  “Do you believe City staff time should be allocated to organizing statewide lobbying days in Albany initiated by the Mayor without a clearly defined budget line or formal Council approval?”

Kingston Planning Board Expands Mounting Pushback on Governor’s SEQR Changes

by

 

The Kingston Planning Board has formally weighed in on the Governor’s proposed changes to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), warning that, as written, the changes could undermine thoughtful, responsible development in Kingston. Their letter adds to a growing and aligned chorus that includes the Kingston Common Council and the Kingston Conservation Advisory Council (CAC).

What makes the Planning Board’s perspective especially important is its daily, hands-on review of development proposals in Kingston, giving it a grounded understanding of how projects affect neighborhoods, infrastructure, and the environment. Because of that experience, their concerns deserve close attention in Kingston and across the state—particularly from other local legislative and advisory bodies that may not be fully engaged with the issue – yet. 

The result is a growing disconnect between Kingston’s local legislative and advisory bodies and the political posturing at both the local and state executive level, reflecting a broader pattern of “I know best” policymaking that sidelines everyone except well-resourced developers.

If the Governor’s proposal were advanced through a fully public, transparent process, it would face far greater scrutiny on its merits. Instead, embedding these changes in the budget limits debate, restricts public participation, and effectively puts a thumb on the scale of a decision with long-term consequences for communities across the state.

While the Kingston Common Council, Planning Board, and CAC are raising concerns about both the substance of the Governor’s SEQR proposal and the use of the budget process to advance sweeping policy changes with no meaningful opportunity for public input, our Mayor is organizing rallies in Albany in support of the Governor, likely involving city hall staff time.

This comes as the state is already in the middle of a formal SEQR regulatory update process that includes environmental justice siting and disadvantaged community protections. Public comment closed in May 2025 after months of engagement and substantial input from communities and advocates. If the Governor’s proposed SEQR changes are adopted in the budget, they would effectively override that ongoing process and the work that has been done to date.

It has become increasingly clear that the Governor’s SEQR proposal should be removed from the budget—since the budget is no place for sweeping changes to SEQR—or, at minimum, it requires significant refinement to avoid unintended and potentially serious consequences.

TAKE ACTION

Call your State Senator and Assembly Member today and tell them: SEQR changes do not belong in the budget.  Demand that these sweeping environmental policy changes be removed and considered through a full, transparent public process where communities have a real voice.

Read our FAQ: Protect SEQRA: Ensure Housing Development Without Weakening Environmental Protections

Kingston’s Zoning Board of Appeals reverses its June DAR House decision, siding with the HLPC—and why this case matters to every Kingston resident 

by

Screenshot of Zoom recording from Dec. 11 ZBA meeting

By Marissa Marvelli

On Thursday, December 11, nearly six months after its last deliberation, the five-member Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) unanimously reversed its June 12 decision regarding the historic Sleight-Tappen/DAR House windows. Over three hours, the board, led by chair Anthony Tampone Jr., carefully applied the preservation review criteria that guide the Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission (HLPC) in evaluating changes to landmark-designated buildings and districts. Members repeatedly cited the extensive record compiled since 2021, when the Wiltwyck Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) was first notified that exterior work on the building required review. Assistant Corporation Counsel Matt Jankowski aided the board in drafting a detailed decision typical of the HLPC.

During deliberations, Tampone and other members acknowledged that the board had been misled back in June about the proposed replacement windows. Contrary to the DAR’s prior assertions, the windows are not “exact replicas” of the existing historic windows; they are generic replacements. Tampone explained that he personally confirmed  this by contacting a Marvin window representative, who said that the measurements that were taken were only of the overall openings, and not any of the other window details. The board engaged in a lengthy discussion about the special qualities of historic windows, how they differ from modern replacements, and how the cumulative effect of 32 rigidly square contemporary windows would diminish the architectural integrity of one of the Stockade’s significant historic buildings. Members also noted that, in a 2023 affidavit, the DAR itself admitted that restoring the historic windows would have been more cost-effective. Board members struggled to understand why they did not go that route. The costs associated with replacements have undoubtedly increased since the chapter engaged in a protracted legal dispute.

The DAR’s attorney, James Bacon, a sitting judge in New Paltz, was the sole representative of the applicant present. The board permitted him to testify before their deliberation began. Much of his case consisted of recycled arguments already refuted or dismissed by both the ZBA and HLPC. Most notably, Bacon again asserted—incorrectly—that only federal recognition of a building’s individual significance permits regulatory control over exterior features. The City of Kingston, a certified local government with a historic preservation ordinance, has the authority to carry out municipal responsibilities for its historic preservation program. It is largely carried out by its trained and qualified commission, the HLPC, which reviews and approves exterior changes to its locally designated landmarks and in local historic districts. The DAR House is both an individually designated landmark (since 1969) and a contributing building in the Stockade Historic District. The building’s—or district’s—listing on the National Register of Historic Places is irrelevant to the City’s authority in this matter.

Generously interpreting an old brochure of preservation guidelines, Bacon repeated the DAR’s justification for failing to seek HLPC approval before expending $65,000 on Marvin replacement windows in March 2022, the same month Kingston Planning Director Suzanne Cahill contacted the chapter for a second time to confirm that exterior work required review. The DAR has previously admitted that it did not consult the City of Kingston’s administrative code before proceeding.

The credibility of the DAR’s case was further undermined when Chair Tampone questioned Bacon’s submission of what was plainly an AI-generated query summary as an exhibit for the record. Under questioning, Bacon explained that he was unaware the document was AI-generated and that it had come from Kaaren Davis, the chapter’s treasurer, and originated with her son, Harley Davis, whom Bacon stated is also the contractor for the window replacement project. Bacon agreed it should be removed from the record, adding that he would not have accepted such a submission in his own court.

What was made abundantly obvious last night is the urgent need to address the ambiguity in Kingston’s administrative code. A questionable interpretation by the Corporation Counsel forced the ZBA to serve as a de facto landmarks commission without the requisite training, expertise, or experience. While the ZBA members should be applauded for their thoughtful deliberation last night, they should never have been put in the position of re-deciding the HLPC’s certificate of appropriateness decision rather than its subsequent hardship denial. A code amendment is now being prepared for Common Council adoption in the new year.

What’s Next?

The unanimous ZBA decision is not the end of this advocacy effort. The DAR will likely return to court for judicial relief, where a single judge, Honorable Sharon Graff, could overrule the hundreds of hours expended by city staff, volunteers on the HLPC and ZBA, and advocates to review, uphold, and defend Kingston’s preservation law. Graff is more likely to side with the DAR—and possibly award them financial compensation—in the absence of a response from City of Kingston’s Corporation Counsel Barbara Graves-Poller, who, to date, has not publicly acknowledged the DAR’s article 78 petition filed in State Supreme Court on July 25, despite the frivolous nature of the suit.

Civic engagement is not episodic; it’s a daily practice. Meaningful change, whether in historic preservation, zoning reform, affordable housing, or charter reform, is a long game that depends on sustained public participation. Almost without exception, high-stakes conflicts like the DAR House case expose the weaknesses in our democracy. Here, that weakness is Kingston’s strong-mayor form of government, codified in our three-decades-old “city manager” charter. Just weeks after receiving a controversial $30,000 salary increase, Graves-Poller continues to operate within a system in which her office serves at the mayor’s pleasure. With Mayor Steve Noble up for re-election in 2027, this structure inherently discourages independent representation of the Common Council when disagreements between the two branches arise. The DAR House case is simply the latest instance in which this flaw has been exposed.

 

Call to Action: 

  1. Demand a strong legal defense. Write to Mayor Steve Noble and urge him to direct the Corporation Counsel’s office to defend the hard work of the HLPC, ZBA, and city staff on the DAR matter in court. These volunteer boards and public servants followed the law and deserve the city’s full backing in court. Letters can be emailed to SN****@*********ny.gov or mailed to Office of the Mayor, 420 Broadway, Kingston, NY 12401.
  2. Show up and speak out. Use the public comment period at monthly Common Council meetings to urge the Council to have its own staff, specifically, an independent counsel and independent clerk. This independence is essential for good governance and for the Council to effectively carry out its responsibilities, especially as it prepares to oversee the city charter review process in 2026-2027, a process the Mayor recently declined to support. The next council meeting is on Wednesday, December 17. The following hearing will be Tuesday, January 6, when four new council members, including myself, will be sworn in.

 

Background Reading

“Preserving Our History and the Laws That Protect It”  KingstonCitizens.org, Aug. 20, 2025

“Local Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution Battling Against Kingston’s Historic Preservation Law”   KingstonCitizens.org, July 3, 2025

“Kingston slaps stone house with stop-work order over window renovations”  by Brian Hubert, Daily Freeman, July 25, 2025.

 

Correction (December 15, 2025): This post previously misstated the year of the Mayoral election. It is in 2027 and has been corrected here.

Kingston’s Noise Ordinance Exists But Is It Being Enforced?

by
Click on image to hear construction noise after 6:00pm.

By Rebecca Martin

Imagine being jolted awake at 7:00 a.m. on a weekday by the sound of heavy machinery and the persistent, high-pitch truck backup alarms—not once, but week after week for months. This is the reality for at least one Midtown Kingston resident, who is dealing with the ongoing noise from new construction in their neighborhood. They report that construction often begins before the city’s legally allowed start time, disrupting early mornings and weekends. The noise ordinance specifies the maximum decibel levels allowed, yet construction regularly exceeds those limits on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. Despite filing complaints with the Kingston Planning Department, contacting their Common Council representative, and calling the Kingston Police Department multiple times, the noise persists.

Under Kingston’s municipal code, construction is allowed to take place Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., excluding holidays. If a developer or contractor wishes to work outside of those hours, they must apply for a special permit and demonstrate an “unreasonable hardship” that justifies the exception. This safeguard is meant to protect residents from excessive noise and disruption during times traditionally reserved for rest.

In this case, it appears that these special permits are being issued without requiring proof of hardship, and that 7:00 a.m. start times are regularly approved. This is happening despite a previous decision by the city’s Laws and Rules Committee, which, as we understand it, reviewed and declined a proposal to change the official start time to 7:00 a.m., maintaining the 8:00 a.m. start as a standard that best serves the interests of Kingston’s residents. (Minutes from the January 2018 meeting are not readily available on the City of Kingston’s website).

These claims point to a significant gap between what the ordinance requires and how it is being implemented. The result, the resident says, has been ongoing exposure to high-decibel construction noise for 55 or more hours per week, with limited opportunities for relief. They also report calling the Kingston Police Department on multiple occasions when work began before 8:00 a.m., and that in many instances, police intervened and stopped the work, suggesting that violations had, in fact, occurred.

This situation raises broader concerns about the city’s enforcement mechanisms. Is it appropriate for the police to be solely responsible for responding to construction noise violations? Officers already carry heavy workloads, and their presence may not be the most effective or proportional response to ongoing quality-of-life issues like this. There may be a need for additional oversight, accountability, or alternative avenues of enforcement within the Building Department or other city structures.

Importantly, the Planning Department and Planning Board must ensure that construction plans are reasonable and feasible within the allowed hours and decibel levels so that “emergencies” like excessive rain in the spring do not constitute a “hardship.” Permitting exceptions without scrutiny not only undermines the ordinance, it also places the burden on residents to prove that something is wrong. 

It’s important to recognize that managing noise on construction sites—and adhering to the city’s noise ordinance hours—helps protect construction companies from fines, lawsuits, and reputational damage. The cost of doing business should include investments in site preparation and noise-reducing measures. While many construction companies worry about costs, staying compliant with noise regulations can prevent bigger problems down the road.

There is growing research on the psychological effects of chronic noise exposure, showing a strong correlation with increased stress, sleep disruption, anxiety, and even increased rates of violent crime. This isn’t just a matter of inconvenience—it’s a public health issue. 

This experience mirrors other complaints we’ve heard in recent years and highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in how construction permits are managed. The core issue remains: residents have a right to quiet enjoyment of their homes, and if city departments are issuing permits that conflict with the law—or failing to require the documentation the law demands—residents deserve to know.

We’ve seen firsthand that individual residents can drive meaningful change when it comes to noise issues. In 2021, Kingston resident Lisa Darling confronted a different kind of disruption: the relentless sound of high-pitched backup alarms coming from a nearby NYS Department of Transportation (DOT) facility operating through the night. When she first raised the issue, she was told nothing could be done. But through persistence, collaboration with neighbors, and support from local and state officials, Darling succeeded in persuading the DOT to pilot—and ultimately adopt—quieter, OSHA-approved white noise alarms. Her advocacy didn’t just bring relief to her neighborhood; it led to a policy change affecting 60 DOT facilities statewide. Her story is a powerful reminder of what’s possible when residents speak up, stay engaged, and push for solutions through the right channels.

The point isn’t to stop construction or block development. It’s to ensure that progress doesn’t come at the expense of the people who already live here. Ordinances like Kingston’s construction noise rules exist to protect public health and community livability. If they are being ignored or circumvented, then residents have every right to ask why and to demand better.

If you are experiencing similar issues, for now, you can report noise violations by calling the Kingston Police Department’s non-emergency line at (845) 331-1671. You can also contact the City Planner’s office at (845) 334-3957 or email pl******@*********ny.gov. Finally, consider reaching out to your Common Council representative to share your concerns and request that the issue be addressed at the policy level.

As always, we encourage residents to engage with their local government, ask questions, and push for transparency. Your voice matters—and your peace of mind does, too.

UCAT’s Route Changes Are Premature Without a Clear Plan for the Hub

by

By Rebecca Martin

ACTION UPDATE: On August 27, the Ulster County Transit Riders and Intermodal Advisory Committee (TRIAC) recommended steps to reduce service disruption and rider hardship caused by the closure of the Kingston Plaza bus hub. To maintain access and convenience for UCAT riders, they propose allowing buses to pick up and drop off passengers anywhere along routes within the City of Kingston using a flag system. They also recommend redirecting routes that previously ended at Kingston Plaza to either Westbrook Lane and Clinton Avenue or Fair Street and Schwenk Drive. Additionally, intersections where at least three bus routes meet should be designated as official stops. These temporary measures aim to ensure continuity of service, allow for rider feedback, and support data collection to inform the Route Optimization Plan (ROP). TRIAC emphasizes that no major changes to UCAT routes or schedules should occur until they are thoroughly evaluated and approved through the ROP’s formal public planning process.

###

Ulster County Area Transit (UCAT) is preparing to make significant changes to its bus routes and schedules on September 15 (pushed back from the original date of September 10). These changes include the relocation of the central bus hub from Kingston Plaza to Development Court in the Town of Ulster. But before these changes go into effect, the public deserves some answers.

Kingston Plaza has been a key transfer hub – centrally located and well connected to neighborhoods, businesses, and other transit routes.  Replacing it without a clear, accessible alternative that has been publicly vetted raises serious concerns.  Development Court, the new proposed location, is difficult to reach on foot and lacks safe access for cyclists, making it effectively car-dependent.  Riders might also be required to pass through a Sheriff’s Department screening and use restrooms inside the Department of Social Services building.  

According to advocates, Ulster County says the move is purely practical – county owned and large enough – but the implications matter. Transit infrastructure should reflect dignity, access and equity. Public transportation needs to remove barriers, not create new ones. 

Here’s the central question: Was there ever a formal agreement – an MOU, lease, or other document – between the County and Kingston Plaza allowing UCAT to operate a hub there? If so, what were the terms, and why did they end? If not, how was the location justified and sustained for so long? The County Executive’s press release made no mention of this loss, leaving riders and the public in the dark.

More importantly, whatever arrangement supported the original hub should inform its replacement. Was the Kingston Plaza hub selected because of proximity to services, foot traffic, or centrality? Those criteria still matter – and Development Court likely fails on most of them. It’s isolated, lacks walkability, and does not serve as a natural transfer point for riders moving through Kingston.

The County already owns property within the City of Kingston that could serve as more appropriate locations for a transit hub – including surface lots at the County Office Building uptown and the Midtown medical building. These sites could be reconfigured to support transfers and even include parking solutions. Public properties like 25 Field Court – located next to the Midtown Linear Park – also deserve serious consideration, especially since moving the hub away from Kingston Plaza would cut off transit access to the trail. That trail was promoted as a key part of broader efforts to reconnect Midtown after decades of disinvestment, urban renewal, and the construction of Route 587. Dietz Stadium is another strong option – directly across from Trailways and close enough to Kingston Plaza to preserve current route patterns. Academy Green, while more limited in access, could function as a smaller satellite hub for uptown, which is also facing service cuts. And if public funds are already going toward the Kingstonian parking garage, why not leverage that facility to provide covered, centrally located transit access? Whatever site is ultimately selected, it must be publicly owned and backed by a formal agreement. Relying on informal or “de facto” hubs on private property leaves riders vulnerable to abrupt changes—as we’re seeing now.

The process behind these changes is also troubling. The County’s Route Optimization Planning effort is still underway, and the public was told that any major route revisions would follow scenario vetting, community feedback, and field testing. These steps have not yet happened. So why is a new schedule being launched now?

Other issues persist in the proposed changes. Some neighborhoods that lost service during the Citibus-UCAT merger in 2019 – such as Wilbur, Clifton Avenue, and the Avenues – remain underserved today. Expanded service within the City of Kingston has been discussed since 2017, and more frequent routes were promised during the merger process, but many areas still lack adequate coverage.  Significant gaps in midday and evening service make transit unreliable for workers and students. On-request stops require riders to call dispatch – a system that doesn’t work well for those without phones, with limited reception, or when dispatch isn’t available to answer. Fixed-route coverage remains weak in parts of the county like Milton and Marlborough, and some routes still operate in only one direction – resulting in long, inefficient trips. Finally, it’s unclear what happens to service on weekends. Will Kingston Plaza continue to function as a hub on Saturdays and Sundays? If so, weekday riders are being forced into a less functional system than weekend users

This is not the time to push through half-complete changes. The County should pause the route overhaul and focus solely on re-establishing a viable, accessible hub within the City of Kingston. No other service changes should proceed until the public process is complete and riders have a clear, centralized place to connect.

Public transportation should be simple, intuitive, and equitable.  It’s not charity, and it’s not just for those without other options. Yet too often in our area, we treat transit like a social safety net rather than the essential public good that it is: something that benefits everyone.  

People with cars have a certain kind of privilege – access to flexible schedules, faster commutes, and more freedom of movement. A strong transit system helps level the playing field by offering real mobility to all, regardless of age, income, or ability. That means investing in a service – not cutting it, and not making it more complicated. 

Transit is not just about buses and routes – it’s about access, dignity and connection. Before we redraw the map, we need to answer the public’s questions, respect the planning process that’s already underway, and make sure the system is improving – not unraveling. 

Riders deserve more than a detour. They deserve a say.

Preserving Our History and the Laws That Protect It

by

By Group Editorial

This summer marks 50 years since Kingston’s Stockade Historic District was added to the National Register of Historic Places. Recognized for its rare “cross strata” of 18th, 19th, and 20th-century architecture, the Stockade tells the story of a city that has evolved over centuries. A year before that federal recognition, Kingston took action to preserve its legacy locally, establishing both the Stockade Area and the West Strand as the city’s first historic districts. These protections came in direct response to the devastating loss of the Rondout neighborhood during urban renewal. 

But historic designation is not about freezing a neighborhood in time. Preservation is about moderating change so that the story of a place can continue to evolve without losing the qualities that make it special. Kingston’s Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission (HLPC) is charged with moderating that change. Unlike half a century ago, there are well-established national standards, procedures, and resources in place to support its work and findings.  

So what exactly are we preserving through designation? The preservation debate today is rarely about whether a whole neighborhood or even a single building should remain in place. It’s instead about preserving the definition of a historic place in terms of the quality of its image, or the degree of pixelation. Take, for example, the Sleight-Tappen House on Green Street, owned by the Daughters of the American Revolution since 1907 (and that we’ve been reporting on recently). What value does an 18th-century stone house still hold if it’s stripped of its historic windows and its openings filled with 32 generic mass-manufactured inserts? 

This isn’t simply a design issue. It’s a choice between doable, authentic preservation and initiating a cycle of costly, short-lived replacements that future generations will inherit.

But as we work to preserve our built environment, we also have to protect the integrity of the laws that make it possible—not just preservation law, but the full legal framework that upholds fairness, accountability, and public trust. 

The HLPC held seven hearings over three years and ultimately ruled that the historic windows at the Sleight-Tappen House—many dating to the 1800s, possibly even earlier—could be repaired. That decision reflects not just sound preservation values, but a clear, consistent application of the law. And thanks to our region’s network of restoration experts, this path is both practical and cost-effective.

Preservation is also an economic driver. It stimulates commercial development, draws tourism, sustains skilled trades, and stabilizes property values. Kingston’s identity as a historic city isn’t branding—it’s a civic asset. But that identity depends on following through when the laws we’ve put in place are challenged.

The current case surrounding the DAR House isn’t just about windows. It involves unpermitted work, a city-issued stop-work order, and a court petition by the DAR to retroactively legalize construction.

Despite a court-imposed deadline of August 22 to respond, the City of Kingston’s Corporation Counsel (and chair of the Ulster County Democratic Committee), Barbara Graves-Poller, has refused to act.  She has informed the Common Council that her office lacks the resources and doubts the city’s chances of success. The refusal comes despite the Council’s unanimous written request, submitted on August 14, urging the City to take legal action to defend Kingston’s laws.  (**)

Meanwhile, the DAR and its contractor have resumed work, despite the stop-work order still being in effect. Over the weekend of August 16–17, eight more window openings were covered in black plastic, suggesting more removals. The Building Safety Division was again alerted.

Taped to the front door, just beneath the official stop-work notice, was a copy of Judge Graff’s signed Order to Show Cause, which the DAR and their attorney wrongly interpreted as permission to continue work. That misreading misled not only them but some in the community.

On August 19, Judge Graff issued a direct clarification:

“To clear up the apparent ambiguity, this Court’s July 28, 2025 Order to Show Cause does not include a temporary restraining order. Accordingly, and to clarify, the stop-work order is not held in abeyance. Pending further order of this Court, the stop-work order remains in effect, and any work currently underway should be ceased pending determination of the pending proceeding and/or further order of this Court…”

In other words, the DAR, their legal team, and those who backed their interpretation were wrong. The stop-work order remains fully in effect. Any continued construction is illegal.

While the Friends of Historic Kingston, through attorney Sean Denvir, have stepped up to intervene and seek clarification, the City’s own legal department has stayed silent.

Although charter reform is under discussion, that process could take years. In light of this situation, the Common Council might have a more immediate option: to pass a local law authorizing the hiring of its own attorney and clerk. Even if the positions can’t be funded this year, establishing the legal authority to appoint independent staff is the most urgent and effective step the Council can take to uphold Kingston’s laws, protect the public interest, and ensure accountability.


** Added on Thursday, August 21:  From KingstonCitizens.org:  The petition was filed on July 25, and the Order to Show Cause was issued on July 28. As of now, the city has not responded. The deadline to do so is this Friday. Comments regarding Barbara Graves-Poller was shared through several sources in response to ongoing questions about whether the city intends to act. If there’s a plan in place — or if Corporation Counsel has a different explanation — the city should issue a statement.

Kingston Considers Revisiting Its City Charter – A Chance to Right a Longstanding Wrong

by

By Rebecca Martin

Tonight, the City of Kingston’s Laws and Rules Committee took an important first step toward potentially reforming the city’s charter by discussing the establishment of a charter commission. This could finally open the door to revisiting – and possibly repairing – a deeply flawed process that has shaped Kingston’s local government for the past three decades.

In 1993, Kingston voters approved a significant change to their form of government: adopting a city manager system intended to professionalize executive leadership. However, the transition was quickly reversed. Within a year, a new charter was pushed forward that abandoned the city manager idea and introduced a strong mayor model – albeit hastily and with obvious political motivations.

Rather than carefully reworking the charter to reflect a new system of checks and balances, the revised document simply replaced the words “city manager” with “mayor”. The result was a version of the charter that gave enormous executive power to the elected mayor, stripping away the oversight and balance originally granted to the common council under the city manager model.

READ:  How Kingston Got It’s “Strong Mayor” Form of Government.

As early as 2006, Kingston community members have pushed for city charter reform, despite strong resistance from the city’s Democratic leadership, which has repeatedly defended the status quo and blocked meaningful change.

Tonight’s discussion about forming a charter commission presents a meaningful opportunity to rethink how Kingston is governed and whether the current charter serves its people. Throughout this effort, dedicated residents – working to protect their families, neighbors, and the broader community – have often been bullied, belittled, or ignored as they were made to fight to uncover hidden truths about the past, while exploring forms of government.

I attended tonight’s meeting and appreciated how smoothly the conversation unfolded, thanks in part to years of community advocacy. Still, there was no acknowledgment of the institutional memory behind this work. One council member casually claimed the city’s credit for bringing the City of Beacon’s administrator to Kingston to discuss forms of government,  an event that was organized by KingstonCitizens.org in 2014, without any support or interest by City of Kingston elected officials.

The Laws and Rules Committee, chaired by Ward 9 Alderwoman Michele Hirsch, will hold a special meeting on July 23rd at 5pm to discuss proposed local law language to establish the charter commission. As we understand it, to move forward, Kingston must follow New York State law (Article 9 of the State Constitution), which requires the city to adopt a local law clearly defining the commission’s size (or method to determine it), whether members are appointed or elected, and the selection process.

The council also discussed using a Citizens’ Assembly to select charter commissioners – a method we strongly support. A Citizens’ Assembly randomly selects a diverse group of residents who reflect the community’s demographics, including race, age, gender, experience, and expertise. If done well, this approach fosters broad civic engagement, reduces political bias, and ensures diverse voices in decision-making. We believe this method should extend to all Kingston’s boards, committees, and commissions appointments.

Over the next several months, it will be crucial that the city clearly explain the process to the community to build trust and avoid fears of rushed decisions. For a charter commission, proper staffing and resources are essential. An experienced and unbiased consultant (dig deeper than Pattern for Progress, Kingston) can guide the commission in reviewing and revising the charter and in deciding how to present proposals to voters. Ten years ago, funding for this type of project was available through the Dyson Foundation. If the city moves forward, it should actively seek funding opportunities. Aside from the comprehensive plan and form-based-code, this is one of the most critical investments the city can make. It must not cut corners – it needs to get this right.

We support the Kingston Common Council’s effort to create a charter commission. If the process is properly resourced, fair, transparent, and inclusive, then in a few years the City of Kingston could finally have a charter that truly reflects proper checks and balances – regardless of which form of government is ultimately adopted. While this would be a major step forward, there is still much work to do to ensure our city continues to grow more equitable, accountable, and responsive to all its residents.

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

KingstonCitizens.org City of Kingston Charter process and materials

GUEST ARTICLE: No place like home

by

Penn Court Apartments, fall 2024  (photo credit:  Rokosz Most)

 

Kingston Housing Authority tenants at Penn Court face two-years-long relocation, destination uncertain

By Rokosz Most

Plans to demolish the 32 units that make up Penn Court, a low-income housing development owned by the Kingston Housing Authority (KHA) in the city of Kingston, in order to build up a new four story senior housing building in its place, have affordable housing advocates on edge. Worried for current residents who will have to move during the two-years long project and questioning the veracity of the ever-shifting relocation plans communicated so far. 

The demolition and redevelopment is to be undertaken by Mountco Construction.

Spokespersons for both the KHA and Mountco, the KHA’s private partner in development, have insisted that no residents will be displaced.

Speaking to the planning board on October 22, Executive Director of the KHA, Harolda Wilcox, asserted that all tenants displaced by the demolition would be relocated to the Rondout Gardens Apartments, another KHA-owned property within the city limits.

“We have units at Rondout,” Wilcox said, “that they will be relocated to, but they still have the first right to return, so once the completion of the construction is done they will still get first opportunity to move back to those [newly constructed] units.”

Along with the 131 units of the Rondout Gardens, the KHA currently manages 350 other rental units over four other properties spread across the city of Kingston- Colonial Gardens, Wiltwyck Gardens, Leonard & Vera Van Dyke Apartment- formerly known as the Stuyvesant Charter Apartments and Brigham senior housing, owned by Jobco Inc out of Lake Success, NY. 

Skeptical with Wilcox’s explanation, City of Kingston Common Council alderwoman Michele Hirsch wants more details.

“To say that during a housing crisis, 32 households can be permanently relocated to [another KHA property],” Hirsch said, “I don’t see how that’s possible unless they’re warehousing apartments that we don’t know about.” 

Assemblymember Sarahana Shrestha, likewise interested to see the actual plan as it was written, had her office reach out to the agency responsible for administering housing and community development programs in New York State, the HCR.

According to the HCR, as of November 15, no relocation plans spelling out the address where the tenants will be moved have been submitted. However the agency did note that the KHA may need to begin relocating residents prior to their official application.

“They’re announcing publicly there’s a plan,” says Hirsch, “and there’s no plan that’s been submitted.”

Since October 10, the tenants of Penn Court have been receiving 90-day notices of their impending ‘permanent relocation’- the official terminology of their move spelled out in the KHA letter- which specifies the duration of the project as 24 months. 

Expressing apprehension at how the KHA might react if they were identified in print, all tenants of the Penn Court apartments interviewed for this article requested that their real names not be used.

Mr. Moran, a tenant of Penn Court for years says he received his letter, but says the letter doesn’t specify where he’ll be relocated to.

“I don’t know if it’s Rondout or down below [Colonial Gardens]. I haven’t been notified as to where at.”

Grateful to have options for housing with the KHA, he doesn’t hold any illusions about being able to make it out in Kingston’s private rental housing market.

“I’ve seen the prices, man,” says Moran. “It’s crazy. Especially when you’re on a fixed income, you know. SSI (Supplemental Security Income).”

Across the way, Miss Millie says her letter doesn’t tell her where she is going to be moved either. A relative newcomer to Penn Court, she admits the imminent move and the proposed duration of the project inconveniences her but that she would even endure living in a hotel if it meant she could return to a KHA building. Her main concern is that she stays in the city. 

“If I was allowed the freedoms I have, within reason, then I wouldn’t mind as long as it was still local and I could get to work. I definitely wouldn’t want to go to a DSS (Department of Social Services) hotel and have to deal with DSS and rules and stuff.” 

She’s held the same job for five and a half years and relies on public transportation to get there. She points out that she has a son buried in St. Mary’s cemetery, across Flatbush Ave, one hundred yards away from her front door. 

“So, yeah, I plan on dying here.”

Miss Millie says that the KHA letter instructs that letter recipients will be relocated between January 15th and April 15th, 2025. 

“We’ll be permanently relocated with a right to return to the new building… We’d know where we’d be moving 30 days in advance. And that’s if we’re in good standing.”

Back across the courtyard, speaking from the door of his apartment, Mr. Seamus, fears the upcoming move. 

 “All I know is I can’t afford O’Neil street,” says the sixty-year-old, who uses O’Neil as his shorthand for the private rental market in Kingston. Born here in the city, lived his whole life here, Mr. Seamus wants to stay near his sister. “I can’t move far away. I’ve got health problems.”

As anyone who has looked to find housing within the KHA universe knows, vacancies are typically few and far in between.  A waiting list opens only sporadically, never failing to attract hundreds of new applicants. 

Over the course of three days in 2023, (August 15 through August 17), the KHA received approximately 1,500 applications. This year, after accepting applications for just the Van Dyke apartments, the KHA reported approximately 200 applicants on the waitlist for one-bedroom apartments and approximately 150 on the list for two bedroom apartments. Portfolio-wide, as of October, the KHA reported approximately 1,000 people on its waiting list.

Over the course of 2022-2023, typical amounts of vacancies were four to five units per building. Due in part to redevelopment efforts among its properties, currently the KHA reports approximately 39 units vacant across its entire portfolio. 

Back in May, vice president for Mountco, John Madeo, told the KHA board of commissioners that instead of units at the Rondout gardens, the residents of Penn Court would be moved to vacant apartments at the Leonard and Vera Van Dyke complex. 

Then back in July, at a time when Mountco and the KHA had been looking at demolishing three completely different buildings, this time in the Rondout Gardens, Madeo shared still a third version of where vacancies could appear in the KHA portfolio.

Speaking at a meeting with affected residents, Madeo was more expansive as he gamed out what the plans to relocate residents might actually look like in practice.

“The first thing we’re going to do is look at, are there any vacancies here at Rondout. If not here, we’ll look at other housing authority developments, whether it’s Van Dyke, whether it’s Wiltwyck, whether it’s Colonial Gardens. If we still don’t have any vacancies, we’re going to look outside [the KHA properties] in Kingston.”

When push comes to shove, if enough units aren’t available across all KHA properties, the expectation that any rental housing affordable to low-income tenants in Kingston’s private real estate market will be available is a longshot.

Included as part of the City of Kingston’s Comprehensive plan for 2024, a housing market analysis noted that “there is insufficient housing for households earning 0-30% AMI and 30-50% AMI in the City of Kingston with a 1,060 rental unit gap between the 1,455 renters earning 0-30% and the 395 units considered affordable to this population and a 145 rental unit gap for the 1,145 renters earning 30-50% AMI”.

Even if Madeo has not been made aware of the dearth of housing which exists in Kingston’s private market, and Mountco has been in partnership with the KHA since 2019, the KHA certainly knows. 

The public authority administers the City’s Section 8 Housing Voucher (HVC) Program, through which it provides up to 180 vouchers. Again, from the city of Kingston’s comprehensive plan:

“Due to the extremely limited housing stock available within the City, oftentimes the vouchers end up needing to be returned after an already extended 6-month period to try to locate housing.”

In the same report, a needs assessment also notes “at any given time 100 housing choice voucher holders do not have access to housing in the City due to lack of inventory. With no other options available, 100 voucher holders in 2023 had to seek assistance from homeless shelters.”

Speaking to Madeo at the meeting in July of 2023, an unidentified tenant from one of the Rondout Gardens buildings slated for demolition perhaps said it best.

“I’m sure you realize it. It was in [Cosmopolitan magazine] that Kingston is the place to be. We all know that no one’s going to be looking for another place in Kingston, because it’s going to be impossible to find.”

“If we can’t find anyplace else,” Madeo said at that meeting, “then we’re going to have to take care of you and put you in a hotel while we renovate your unit.”

According to Hirsch, a hotel would not be a viable option for a permanent relocation as it’s not comparable housing, which is a standard raised by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Act of 1970, (URA) the federal law which governs the displacement or temporary relocation of tenants receiving federal subsidies. The same law also raises questions about the 90 day notice the KHA has been mailing to the Penn Court residents.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires that the notice may not be issued unless a comparable replacement dwelling is available and the displaced person is informed of its location. Received by tenants, the notice does refer to relocation within other KHA owned housing units without specifying the location.

Not clearly understood by those tenants facing relocation are the motivations behind the KHA’s push for conversion of various properties in its portfolio of Section 9 housing over to Section 8, and the financial opportunities which become available once a public authority partners with a private developer. 

Rennie Scott-Childress, majority leader of the City of Kingston Common Council, and chair this year of the KHA, explains the commission’s partnership with Mountco like this. 

“The issue is the board recognizes that A, we need to renovate a lot of our properties. They haven’t been renovated in 20, 30, 40, 50 years. So the question is, how do we get renovations done? So you put out a request for proposals and it could be a not-for-profit, it could be a for-profit. From the replies, we look and see which one is going to give us the best deal from our perspective. A company like Mountco, their money doesn’t come from rental profits. They don’t make a profit, per se, from selling their interests back to us. Their money comes from being able to use tax credits. But in order to qualify, they have to be at least part-owner. These are all state rules. And so that means we’re in league with a private company, but we are not becoming a private company. Keep in mind, we are a state authority and we have certain requirements by the state of what we have to do, so we can’t become a private entity. The main thing is that Mountco is looking for those tax credits.”

When the Division of Homeland and Community Renewal wouldn’t sign off last September on the previous redevelopment plans Mountco had pursued to demolish and redevelop the three buildings in the Rondout Gardens, Mountco switched to the demolition and redevelopment of Penn Court instead.

“The State has their own priorities,” Madeo explained during a September KHA meeting. “They pushed back on Rondout Gardens and want the state sites prioritized.”

Phase two of a of three-part renovation plan was reconfigured to lead with the renovation of Colonial Gardens and Wiltwyck Gardens as well as the demolition and redevelopment of Penn court, all state subsidized properties which would realize 223 units of rehab and new construction with 60 units; 50 of them at Penn Court.

During the process of large scale, multi-unit renovations, developers find it handy to have a few vacancies to fall back on. Madeo calls them ‘swing units’.

“And then I circulate those units going forward, when that unit becomes vacant again, the other tenant goes back there. In the industry, it’s called checkerboarding. You move this person here, you move that person there…”

This complicated logistical puzzle may lend insight to multiple occasions in which members of the KHA or employees of Mountco have been heard to muse openly about whether some tenants might not prefer to move out of the county – or even out of the state – if they could.

Any of the tenants renting units at the Rondout Gardens affected by the ‘Streamlined Voluntary Conversion’(SVC) which the HCR signed off on last September will be able to take HUD funding with them in search of affordable rents in the private market, no matter how far flung, wherever they can find them.

Scott-Childress explained during an interview in July. “They’re both Section 8. It’s all under the same rubric. Some of those vouchers go with a person. So if you got the personal one, here in Kingston. You could say, oh, you know what? I have to move to San Diego. You could take it with you to San Diego.”

Mr. Moran for one, would be game for a big move. “If they moved me to Florida, I would love to go,” he says. “I miss the beach.”

But he’s an outlier. The majority of the Penn Court tenants interviewed want to stay right here in the City of Kingston. So if it’s to be a permanent relocation to Rondout Gardens, like Director Wilcox said, that’ll work, they say. Wherever it will be, as long as it’s in the KHA portfolio, there’s no place like home.

Addendum:

With legal counsel listening in (Jeff Sculley, Catania, Mahon & Rider), Executive Director of the KHA Harolda Wilcox and Vice President of Mountco John Madeo answered questions from reporters outside a City of Kingston Planning Board meeting on Nov 18.

Rokosz Most: When are you guys going to submit an application to HCR that specifies where the tenants are going to be moved to?

John Madeo: We’ve already submitted a preliminary, what’s called a technical application submission. We’re waiting for the state to respond. Once they give us their comments, then we’ll submit the application. We’re hoping that’s going to happen within the next 30 days, before the end of the year, let’s say.

RM: Do you think you jumped the gun sending the 90-day letters to the tenants before the planning board has agreed to grant you waivers?

Harolda Wilcox: No. Legally, we had to. Even if we don’t get a closing, which we’re hopeful of, we have to have the 90-days out prior. It’s HUD rules.

RM:  At the last planning board meeting, you indicated that all 32 households would be moved to Rondout Gardens. I don’t know if that’s plausible.

Madeo: I don’t know if that’s what we said.

RM: That’s what [Wilcox] said.

Wilcox: We’re working on it. We have units held for them.

RM: But 32 vacancies at Rondout Gardens. It’s probably going to be more likely spread around the KHA portfolio, I would think.

Wilcox: Most of them are going to be at Rondout Gardens.

Madeo: But if we have to move somebody someplace else, we will.

RM: And you all don’t see anybody ending up in hotels?

Madeo: I don’t think so, no. I mean, that’s a last resort. And it’s our obligation to relocate people. But that’s not where we’d like to put people. 

RM: They’re permanently relocated, but with an option to return.

Wilcox: Yes. That’s the idea. 

Madeo: That’s a fair way to put it. But it’s not 32 [vacancies]

RM: No?

Madeo: There are 32 units, but they’re not all occupied. 

RM: How many are vacant? 

Wilcox: Off the top of my head, I can’t tell you. I’ll let you know. 

The project to demolish Penn Court and redevelop the property requires waivers because at the size and scope that Mountco intends is currently at odds with the newly adopted form-based code which requires any new buildings conform with the context and character of a surrounding neighborhood.

Board member Robert Jacobsen explained the board’s hesitation so far to grant the waivers.

“If we Grant these major waivers then how does that affect other projects that come before us? Because we’re basically ignoring what the code is. I am in favor of the housing. I am in favor of the building. I think it’s a great building but it’s a building that’s really meant for our Midtown District that has an overlay district,” said Jacobsen. “It has height requirements that allow for that type of height, or even higher. It just doesn’t feel like it’s the right place. It’s a very densely populated residential two story complex through all of colonial gardens, Stuyvesant Apartment and the whole code that was formulated around the existing structures wants to keep it that way. and yet, with this building, you’re just packing so much in and that that’s what I’m struggling with.” 

Rokosz Most is a freelance journalist.  You can follow his work at Autoeroticgentrification on substack

Helpful materials for City of Kingston charter reform discussion

by

By Rebecca Martin

A municipal charter is the legal document that defines the organization, powers, functions, and essential procedures of city government, and the City of Kingston Common Council might be picking up charter reform again in 2024.

Laws and Rules Council Committee in March, 2024

“Kingston lawmakers mull charter revision” in the Daily Freeman

If they are successful, it will be the first time since the fall of 1993/1994 when the city first adopted a city manager form of government. The outcome was abruptly overturned a year later, and Kingston became a strong mayor form of government (which continues to govern us today).   You can read the whole sordid tale by Tom Benton.

The politics of that time period left us with a charter that is plagued with problems, and that we have raised for over a decade. In our efforts to find original materials and learn the truth about the trajectory of that process , we’ve collected many helpful materials that are now accessible to the public.   It includes timelines, a copy of Kingston’s early charter (with amendments from 1970 – 1985), the proposed City Manager form of government revision from 1993 and more.

For those interested in following along, please review the KingstonCitizens.org City of Kingston Charter process for all sorts of helpful materials on Kingston’s Charter.

 

June Primary: Q&A on Early Voting and Primary Day

by

 

Early voting has begun in a closed Democratic primary election contest in Kingston.  It includes a citywide Mayoral race and seats in Wards 1 and 4.  

In all of Ulster County, those who can vote early in the June primary include (as per the Ulster County Board of Elections): All registered Democrats in: Shandaken, Woodstock, Saugerties, Kingston, New Paltz, Gardiner and Hurley; All registered Republicans in: Shawangunk; All registered Working Families Party in: Saugerties.

Early Voting: June 17 – 25
Primary Election: June 27


If your municipality is not listed, it’s because there is not more than one candidate seeking a spot on the ballot for any given party during the General Election ballot in November.

Here are a few helpful key questions and answers to help you during this primary season.   Get out and vote!

 

  1. What is a primary election? In a primary election, each political party selects its candidates to run for office during the general election in November. The candidates who get the highest number of votes in the primary election go on to run in the general election.

 

  1. Can anyone vote in a “closed” primary? During a closed primary, only voters registered with that party can take part and vote.

 

  1. Do I have a primary to vote in? Not all election districts have a primary.  If there is not more than one person trying to seek a particular party line on the general election ballot, there would not be a primary.

 

  1. What if I am not registered in the party that I want to cast a vote in? In NYS, as a current, registered voter, you must have changed your party affiliation by Feb 12 to the party you want to vote with.  If that is not done,  you will not be registered with that party and you cannot vote because in NYS primaries are closed.

 

  1. Can I vote for a person if I do not live in that municipality in a primary election? A voter may only vote within their local voting district for any election.

 

  1. Can I register today and vote? NYS currently does not have same day registration.  This year, that was only available on June 17 as the last day to register as a NEW voter. Under the current law, only on that one day could you register and vote.

 

  1. What happens if I am not in the voter rolls and I did register to vote? You can vote by affidavit ballot, which is then counted by the Board of Elections.  If you have met the criteria to vote after their investigation your vote will be counted.  If your registration does not fit the criteria, it cannot be counted.  The BOE will then send you a letter explaining why so you can correct it for the next election.

 

  1. Why are there no referendums on the ballot? Referendums appear on the ballot in General Elections in November and not during a primary contest. 

 

  1. Why would I not have a ballot to vote on? In the city of Kingston, there is a citywide democratic primary for Mayor. That means that every registered democrat can vote during this primary election.  If you live in Wards 1 and 4, your ballot will include a primary contest for your democratic representative on the Kingston common council.  

 

For more information, visit: 

Early Voting Information: 
https://elections.ulstercountyny.gov/early-voting/

Frequently Asked Questions:
https://elections.ulstercountyny.gov/frequently-asked-questions/

Find your polling place:
https://vic.ntsdata.com/home/ulster

Voter Registration Deadlines: 
https://www.elections.ny.gov/VotingDeadlines.html

 

 

 

City of Kingston Form-Based-Code and the real barrier to creating affordable housing

by

By Rebecca Martin

At the recent Kingston Common Council Laws and Rules Committee meeting on April 19, Director of Housing Initiatives  Bartek Starodaj provided an update on Kingston Forward and Kingston’s Form-Based-Code environmental review process, announcing that the zoning code would be in front of the common council (the lead agency of the review process) soon for a vote. There was alot presented that included Parking Standards, SD Waterfront, Density, Short Term Rentals in Accessory Dwelling Units, Minimum Parking Amendments and Inclusionary Zoning Provisions.

The Kingston common council will be presented with a final Common Council Zoning Discussion #3: Implementation and Enforcement “deep dive” on Monday, April 24 at 6:30pm.  The meeting is open to the public.


HUD vs. ACS for Kingston AMIs

The Inclusionary Zoning Provision segment outlined that for seven (7) or more apartment units, the Area Median Income (AMI) is being proposed at 80% for affordable and 120% for workhouse housing units (the percentage for workhouse in the 2.0 version increased by 20% in the 3.0 version).  

120% AMI is considered market rate housing. 

According to Starodaj, the AMI was set by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) where both the City of Kingston and Ulster County AMI numbers were the same. But Ward 9 Council Member Michelle Hirsch pointed out that the American Community Survey (ACS) data, which is an ongoing survey that provides data each year about the social, economic, housing and demographic characteristics of communities, shows that the City of Kingston’s AMI is nearly $30,000 less than Ulster County’s.  For a household of four people, 80% AMI in Kingston was $47,072 while Ulster County was $76,800.  Hirsch also shared concern that those who rely on Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV), a program that enables the lowest income households in NYS to rent decent, safe housing in the private housing market by providing rental assistance, would unlikely be able to find or afford an apartment in the City of Kingston.  

Meanwhile, Bartek expressed concern that by “deepening” these percentages for those living in Kingston under 80% AMI could lead to chasing away developers from building in Kingston.

A new housing study for Kingston?

The City of Kingston has changed dramatically since it adopted its most recent comprehensive plan on April 5, 2016 and Kingston, like most communities around the US, got hammered during and following the pandemic.  Council member Hirsch asked if the City of Kingston had a housing study that would look at all the AMIs and current housing stock in the community to provide the city with a plan to help make good decisions about setting housing standards now.  “The whole point of Form-Based-Code is to provide housing for people that need housing and can’t afford it.  The incomes in Kingston don’t line up with what is being proposed here.”  she said.

PILOAH and Affordable Housing Fund

“The fear is that if the developer can’t find a way to cover affordable units in it’s development they will walk away.” – Bartek Starodaj 

Recently, KingstonCitizens.org wrote about the city proposing a policy that would allow developers to be able to opt-out of 10% Affordable Units with a Payment-in-Lieu-of Affordable Housing. It included an Affordable Housing Fund as a placeholder without any clarity on policy and procedure that turned up in recent version (3.0) of the Kingston Form-Based-Code.  Later, we stumbled across a request for proposal (RFP) from December of 2022 with a timeline for the city to hire a consultant for guidance on creating the fund by April even though a PILOAH hadn’t yet been adopted.

We followed up with Bartek in an email to ask what had become of the RFP where we copied local housing advocates and members of our common council. He confirmed that the city had established an RFP committee for this project, which included a representative from the Common Council (when we asked Council President Andrea Shaut, who would typically assign a council member to serve in this manner, she told us that she wasn’t aware of the committee or who from the council participated) and after reviewing the submission (s?) earlier this year ultimately declined to hire a consultant.  We asked for minutes and to learn who served on that committee, what consultants responded and why the city chose not to proceed.  After several attempts, we were told to submit a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) in order to receive that information.  

During the Laws and Rules committee meeting, Barbara Graves-Poller, the City of Kingston’s Corporation Counsel, said that she would provide the council with information about the PILOAH and the Affordable Housing Fund in the coming days. Hopefully during tomorrow’s public “deep dive” that information can be shared publicly. 


Parking requirements are one of the real barriers to creating affordable housing in Kingston

Michael Kodransky, a new resident in the City of Kingston and an urban planner, waited hours that evening in order to provide the council with his COMMENTS on what the city needed to do in order to remove barriers for the creation of more affordable housing.  

‘’What stirred my desire to share comments, is being alarmed around parking requirements of the Kingston and Ulster County planning board recommendation around the minimum parking requirements. I have been working with around 10 other people (residents) in Kingston who are equally alarmed. They include parking similar to euclidean zoning and that is not what form-based-code is. If you haven’t been following the news lately (Harpers Magazine: Lots to Lose), parking is in the news quite a lot, and the reason is is because housing crisis in Kingston is a national crisis, there’s a shortage of housing all across the nation and it’s forcing municipalities to reevaluate their parking regulations if they exist. And those municipalities like Buffalo, Hartford, that are abandoning their parking regulations are seeing new development.”

“At this juncture in Kingston to consider putting in parking requirements when there is a housing shortage, when we know according to the 2030 climate action plan that 40% of climate emissions come from driving trips, studies increasingly show that the inclusion of parking undermines multi-model policies. We don’t have any travel demand management ordinance in the city or any understanding of existing private parking that currently exists. It seems like the planning board at the city and county did a copy and paste job from guide books that are being abandoned all over the county. It’s like they haven’t been paying attention to what’s been happening over the last 20 years in the urban planning space. Every week, a new municipality around the country is abandoning their parking requirements…to see the planning board in Kingston and Ulster County recommend to put them in does not make any sense.”

“I encourage the common council to seriously look into this issue, because it increases the cost of construction, and it doesn’t seem as though the planning board on either the city or county level has spoken to any small or medium scale developers to see how this impacts their financial feasibility or banks or insurance to understand what the underwriting for small scale developments would be with these types of requirements. Essentially, these councils and boards are making market intervention recommendations without actually understanding the market implications and the implications on the production of housing. The costs of these types of requirements trickle down to everything else. Services, too.”

“That is correct.” said Ward 3 council member Rennie Scott Childress.  “We agree with you.”  said Ward 4 Rita Worthington

“I encourage you to accept the code that the consultant proposed with no parking requirements. There’s a reason they did that. They listened to what people were saying and what the policy outcomes were that we asked for which is affordable housing. A place that’s connected and affordable. This is an irrational burden for developers and the community. Listen to what the consultants proposed, there is a reason. The public was asking for these outcomes that were reflected in the consultant’s recommendations.”

Upcoming Public Hearing on Kingston Forward Citywide Form-Based Code DGEIS on March 23

by

By Rebecca Martin

On Thursday, March 23 at 6:30pm, a public hearing on the Forward Citywide Form-Based Code draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. (“DGEIS”) will occur at Kingston City Hall. Currently, the hearing is scheduled to occur in the Common Council’s conference Room 1 indicating that the city is not anticipating many residents to attend.  

UPDATE: The meeting will be moved to council chambers

KingstonCitizens.org has requested that it be moved to council chambers in order to accommodate more members of the public. Community members can make the same request by calling or writing Bartek Starodaj, Director of Housing Initiatives at (845) 334-3928 or bs*******@*********ny.gov 

“Resolution 50 of 2023, that passed on March 7, 2023 when the Common Council, the lead agency for the Form-Based Code State Environmental Quality Review (“SEQR”), voted to accept the draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (“DGEIS”) as complete in scope and content. The Common Council also voted to schedule a public hearing on Thursday, March 23th with an open public comment period that will continue through April 10th. ” 

An important moment for the public and housing in the City of Kingston

Although we are nearing the end of the citywide Form-Based Code process, the Kingston Common Council as Lead Agency of the State Environmental Quality Review (“SEQR”) as a type 1 action has an obligation to hear from and respond to the public in its determination of whether or not the DGEIS is either adequate or deficient.  

We continue to fully support a Form-Based Code for Kingston as well as the city and the council in its work to create a unique code for the Kingston community.  To do that, we have identified some questions and concerns out ahead of Thursday’s public hearing. It’s important that the public is confident that the council is guided by Kingston-centric data that takes into account pandemic conditions so that the code, once passed, is inclusive to make housing affordable for all.

Affordable Housing vs. Low Income Housing

In the City of Kingston, we have often heard people speak about Affordable Housing and Low Income housing interchangeably when they are not the same.

Affordable housing defines properties that take up less than 30% of a renter’s income. Low Income housing describes residences designed to support renters struggling to keep up with rising rental costs. These distinctions are important for our new code so that Low Income families are not left behind.

According to HUD’s Median Family Income Calculation Methodology and Income limit definitions, Low Income ranges from 51% – 80% Annual Median Income (“AMI”). If the city sets Affordable Housing at 80% AMI, then according to these figures, we are at the high end of AMI for Low Income housing and may not be attainable in this climate for our Low Income families in Kingston. Furthermore, if the city plans to privatize its public housing authority units as it is currently doing, what will happen to the Very Low Income (31-50% AMI) and Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI) families living here now?  We need more definitions, requirements and incentives for other categories in order to address the housing crisis in the City of Kingston.

Ulster County vs. City of Kingston Median Income 

In the DGEIS, Ulster County rather than City of Kingston median incomes are guiding affordable.  At a glance, according to the US Census (2021), the City of Kingston median income is $58,840 while in Ulster County for the same period is $71,010. That sample alone proves that there are tangible differences between the two.

So why is the code using Ulster County rather than City of Kingston data for the city’s unique zoning code?  In the public comments of the Kingston Community Review (Draft 2.0, line 105), staff wrote that the Ulster County Area Median Income figure is referenced “because HUD does not publish AMI levels specific to Kingston,” and that, “the current draft is simplified to reference the applicable HUD definition.”  

Is the council confident that HUD does not publish AMI levels for Kingston, and is it in our community’s best interest to “simplify” during a housing crisis to turn Ulster County’s AMI into law?  What is the Ulster County AMI doing or not doing to provide opportunities and access for more people who live in the City of Kingston now?

Developers may be able to opt-out of 10% Affordable Units with Payment-in-Lieu-of Affordable Housing

A Payment-in-Lieu-of Affordable Housing (“PILOAH”) is included in the Kingston Form Based Code 3.0, page 114 , where the criteria is not clearly defined, as criteria would be set and adopted by the Kingston Common Council at some later date.  Here, the developer is provided an option to make a Payment-in-Lieu of Affordable Housing instead of providing on-site affordable or workforce housing units into an Affordable Housing Fund.

On March 16, Bartok Starodaj provided the council with a presentation on the housing changes to the Form-Based-Code and at that time, was not able to go into any detail about the municipalities where a PILOAH is successfully implemented or provide examples of policy of how an Affordable Housing Fund is used. 

Since an Executive Order was issued in December 2020, all applicants requesting site plan approval with the City of Kingston’s Planning board building more than 5 units of housing anywhere in the City are required to have at least 10% of its units affordable without any loopholes.

Where did the PILOAH come from and is it wise for the council turn it into law in the code before policies are clearly defined? What should be considered is continuing to require 10% affordable units for all housing projects as well as to include more income ranges than is currently required now as affordable.

Council sets a special meeting to approve the Stony Run Apartments deal ahead of the Form Based Code public hearing as well as the code for housing criteria becoming law.  

As the City of Kingston works on defining housing for development in its code, the council has set-up a special meeting on March 22nd to consider approving a deal with Aker Cos that would allow the developer to raise rents in vacant units unilaterally to the maximum amount allowed by the agreement or 120% AMI. An approval for 120% AMI in any capacity would preempt both the public hearing on March 23 and the Form-Based-Code process before it concludes.

Next steps

1. Attend the upcoming public hearing on the Forward Citywide Form-Based Code draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) on Thursday, March 23 at 6:30pm at Kingston City Hall. If you cannot attend in person, written comments may be emailed to Bartek Starodaj, Director of Housing Initiatives, via bs*******@*********ny.gov or dropped off at the City Clerk’s Office. Consider the following items on housing:

  • Affordable housing and low income housing are not interchangeable. The code should include more definitions, requirements and incentives for all categories of housing in order to accommodate the housing crisis in the City of Kingston;
  • Kingston’s code should be informed by the most up-to-date data for the City of Kingston median income and not Ulster County; 
  • A Payment-in-Lieu of Affordable Housing and Affordable Housing Fund needs policies before being included in the code as law. Otherwise it should be removed.

2. Attend the Special Common Council meeting on March 22nd at 7:30pm at Kingston City Hall.

  • Request that the council table the Aker deal until it has had the opportunity to respond to all additional questions during the Form-Based-Code SEQR process and adopts Kingston’s new code into law.